Dangerous Hero: Rabbinic Attitudes

Toward Legendary Warriors

RICHARD G. MARKS
Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
Identifiable in early rabbinic literature is a class o f extraordinary warriors,
often called gibbonm, whose legendary deeds became the object o f commentary and debate. This essay attempts to define gibbonm as a topic o f discussion
in rabbinic literature and to discover and interpret the attitudes expressed
there toward them and, in relation to them, toward the use of military force
more generally. T h e legends are studied as literary phenomena appearing in
final written texts. These texts express toward gibbonm an ambivalence of attitudes not only admiration for their strength with its transcendent source,
but also anxiety about the dangers to which its misuse might lead. T h e essay
then interprets this ambivalence in relation to individual ethics, national
policy, and the phenomenology o f sacred power. The rabbinic response to
gibbonm took at least two literary forms: one was to glorify them in legend
while warning against reliance on them; a second was to redefine gevurah so
that its associated glory applied to academic and moral victories. T h e essay
concludes by comparing the role played by the story of Herakles in Greek
and Roman literature, and by referring to images o f Bar Kokhba found in
later Jewish literature.

One indication of a culture's attitudes toward war and physical force is to

be found in what its literature says about warriors of heroic strength and
fighting ability. Such warriors were Achilles and Herakles for the
Greeks, and Rma and the Pndavas for many of the peoples of India
and Southeast Asia. I n classical rabbinic literature likewise, we can identify a class of extraordinary warriors whose deeds were told in legend
and became the object of commentary and debate. These warriors were
often designated by the term gibbor.
Parashah 93 of Bereshit Rabbah contains a series of legends that
portray the sons of Jacob as terrifying warriors of superhuman strength.
T h e legends begin with Joseph threatening to make Benjamin his slave
(Gen. 44:17). I n Scripture Judah replies with humble entreaty, but in
these legends h e answers with threats of violence. Filled with rage, Judah
chews iron bars into powder and roars like a lion. T h e roar carries all the
way to the Land of Israel, where Dan's son, Hushim, hears it and comes
to Judah's aid, jumping with one leap to the Land of Egypt. Together
181

182

RICHARD G. MARKS

[2]

they roar so loud that they almost turn Egypt upside-down; and Judah's
brothers, also enraged, stamp upon the ground hard enough to turn it
into furrows. But Joseph is not to be outdone. He kicks a stone pillar into
a heap of rubble, and at that, Judah quiets down.1
Seeing Joseph demolish the pillar in this way, Judah exclaims, "He is
(a) gibbor like us!" Here the word gibbor describes a man who performs
feats of extraordinary strength like those of Judah and his brothers.
This is the meaning the word has elsewhere in rabbinic literature when it
refers to such heroes as Samson, Abner, and Joab, who are expressly
cited as exemplary representatives of the type.2 Rabbinic legends ascribe
to them the same astounding strength that Judah and his brothers
exhibit. For example, according to certain sages, Samson could uproot
two mountains and grind them into dust, and he could traverse vastdistances in a single step; his shoulders were one hundred feet wide.3 T h e
Samson of Scripture is a fierce powerful warrior, but rabbinic legends
picture him even stronger, larger, and of a more terrifying appearance.
As for Abner, a legend depicts his strength and size by comparing him to
a wall eleven feet high by eleven feet thick: this wall would be easier to
move than just one of Abner's feet. 4
T h e word gibbor has other meanings in rabbinic usage. It can specify a
particular type of soldier, such as a knight on horseback or a veteran soldier of high rank. 5 It can also apply to a man whose abilities are not as
spectacular as Samson's and Judah's but are at least sufficient to "inspire
fear in his companions." 6 Here, however, I am using the word gibbor primarily in its reference to warriors of extraordinary strength like Judah
and Samson.
What did the sages of early rabbinic Judaism think about these
gibborim and their great strength? What is the place of gibborim in the
world of rabbinic literature and ideas? T h e purpose of the following
pages is to define gibborim as a topic of discussion in rabbinic literature
and to discover and interpret the attitudes toward gibborim expressed
there. In doing this I hope to provide some additional insight from a
perspective that has not yet received sufficient attention into rabbinic
attitudes toward the use of force in general and its use particularly in
(1) Midrash Bereshit Rabbah, ed. Theodor and Albeck, 93, 6 - 9 (pp. 1155-63); subsequently abbreviated BR.
(2) b. Qidd. 49b. Midr. Vayyikra Rab., ed. Margolies, 5,3 (p. 104); subsequently abbreviated VR.
(3) VR 8,2 (168-69). b. Sotah 9b-10a.
(4) BR Ms. V 9 6 (1235).
(5> b. Sanh. 95b. b. Ber. 53b.
(6) Qidd. 49b.

[31

DANGEROUS HERO

183

relation to messianic redemption. 7 I shall also draw some comparisons

with the role served by the story of Herakles in Greek and Roman literature.
I limit the subject-mattr in this study to five gibborim. These are the
three biblical gibborim J u d a h , Samson, and Abner j u s t described;
and in order to broaden the basis for discussion, I include two postbiblical warriors Bar Daroma and Ben Koziva who are not explicitly called gibborim but are portrayed with the same exceptional strength,
courage, and fighting abilities that characterize the biblical warriors as
gibborim. For example, legend has Bar Daroma jumping three-quarters
of a mile and killing hundreds of enemy soldiers singlehandedly.8 Ben
Koziva catches stones flung from Roman catapults and hurls them back
with deadly results. One kick from his foot kills instantly.9 Ben Koziva
and Bar Daroma thus exhibit the same kinds of abilities a powerful
kick, leaping great distances as the sons of Jacob exhibit. I am speaking of a type of hero, and Bar Daroma and Ben Koziva fit that type. (The
Hasmoneans and Zealots, on the other hand, d o not: rabbinic literature
portrays them as kings and rebels, but not as gibborim.)
T h e passages under study come from early rabbinic literature
namely, the Talmudim and early Amoraic Midrashim. I found only fifteen separate passages about the five gibborim of my study; and this paucity itself indicates something about rabbinic attitudes toward gibborim.
In contrast to the numerous legends about Abraham, Jacob, Moses, and
the sages themselves, there are very few legends recorded about warriors of superhuman strength. Of those legends, the story of Ben Koziva
(known outside rabbinic literature as Bar Kokhba) is the longest and
most complex.
Furthermore, I treat the legends as literary phenomena found in a
final text. Many of the legends and opinions are recorded without attribution; when they are attributed to specific sages, Palestinian Amoraim
of the third century are named most often. None of these attributions
can be verified, and I can say nothing concrete about the transmission of
the legends. What I am studying, then, is the way classical rabbinic texts
present gibborim, after the various legends and opinions reached their
written form.

(7) Jacob Agus refers briefly to rabbinic attitudes toward gibborim, in The Vision and, the
Way (New York, 1g66), p. 61.
(8) b. Git. 57a.
(9) y. Tac an. 4.8 (ed. Goldman, 21a). Midr. 3 Ekhah Rab. 2,5 o n 'Ekhah 2:2.

184

RICHARD G. MARKS

[41

I
Rabbinic legends and commentary express a variety of attitudes toward
gibborim.
T h e texts convey a sense of pleasure in telling the feats of the mighty
heroes of Israel. This pleasure is evident in the way Judah's confrontation with Joseph is told: many of the details have no teaching value, and
they function only to show off the heroes' strength. There is a tone of
lighthearted sport to the story as brothers vie harmlessly to outdo one
another. But these feats of strength arouse pride, too. When Menasseh
stamps his foot upon the floor so hard that the entire palace shakes,
J u d a h cries out, "Such a stamp could only come f r o m my father's
10
house!" Listeners, themselves descended from the House of Jacob, are
intended to feel proud at seeing what strong warriors their fathers were.
We can observe other indications of the pride taken in gibborim. A legend
in Vayyikra Rabbah has the nations of the world boasting that Goliath is
the greatest gibbor of all; but Israel answers them by pointing to its own
Samson, and claiming that he was just as strong as Goliath. 11 Likewise,
the legend about Ben Koziva's army demonstrates the superiority of
Israelite soldiers: they were strong enough to uproot Cedars of Lebanon
and brave enough to chop off one of their fingers. I n regard to Ben
Koziva himself, the legends have Hadrian praise him with these words:
"If God had not killed him, who could have done so?"9 This eulogy
praises Ben Koziva for being a warrior whom Rome could never have
conquered. T h e texts thus express pride in the strength, courage, and
fighting ability of the mighty heroes of Israel.
T h e texts tend to connect the gibbor's strength to God. Legend has
Judah say, upon seeing Joseph's invincibility, "This man must surely be
God-fearing" (yere shamayim) which implies that Joseph's power
comes from God. 12 This power of the gibbor, furthermore, is sometimes
viewed as a manifestation of divine power. T h e clearest expression of
this idea occurs in a tradition about Samson that says that his strength
was created in the likeness of that of God (meceyn dugma0 shel macalah)\
this suggests that there showed through Samson's strength something of
God's own. 13 Another tradition views Samson's astounding powers and
terrifying appearance as manifestations of the Shekhinah (divine prsenee).14
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)

BR 93,6 (1158).
VR 5,3 (104).
BR 93,7 (1163).
b. Sotah 10a.
b. Sotah 9b, bottom. VR 8,2 (168-69).

[51

DANGEROUS HERO

185

Moreover, according to the legends, both Samson and Ben Koziva

were mistaken for the Messiah on account of their exceptional strength.
T h e legend about Ben Koziva first describes him in the midst of battle
catching catapult stones and hurling them back at the enemy, killing
hundreds; and then it concludes, "On account of this, R. Aqiva said what
he said."9 This means that R. Aqiva proclaimed Ben Koziva the Messiah
because of Ben Koziva's feats of strength in battle, the powers that distinguished him as a gibbor. In Bereshit Rabbah the tradition is recorded that
Jacob made the same mistake in regard to Samson, and certainly for the
same reason: "Our father Jacob foresaw him (Samson) and thought that
he was the King Messiah."15 Thus, the astounding strength and military
feats of such gibbonm as Samson and Ben Koziva resemble the extraordinary powers that the Messiah, in this concept of him, was expected to
possess.
This is the image of the messianic king conceived as great gibbor,
f o u n d especially in the Targumim, an d related to t h e ideal king
portrayed as gibbor in Psalms 45 and 89. These psalms explicitly call the
king *gibbor, and they describe him wielding his sword to fight for righteousness (Ps. 45) and conquering all his enemies (Ps. 89). In the renderings of Num. 24:17-24 found in both Targum Onqelos and Targum
Yerushalmi, the Messiah is portrayed as a fierce, bloody warrior, fighting the great final war against Rome. Other passages in the Targumim,
notably Gen. 49:10, portray him in the same way.
T h e possibility that gibborim could be mistaken f o r the Messiah
(because the Messiah himself displays the strength of a gibbor) implies
that the gibbor1 s strength signified something extraordinary about him.
I n this case, it signified a sacred task to perform, a divine appointment
that lifted him above the level of ordinary men. We have seen that rabbinic texts connected Joseph's strength with God, and viewed Samson's
strength as a manifestation of divine power. Rabbinic literature, then,
endows the gibbor with an aura of the sacred. T h e strength of Joseph,
Samson, and Ben Koziva was something strange and wondrous, full of
meaning, that pointed to the power of God.
As such, the texts generally consider the gibbor's strength valuable
insofar as it is used properly. In the legend, Judah was right to use force
to save Benjamin. Sages also approve of the way Samson used his
strength, fighting single-handedly, to protect Israel and punish the Philistines.16
(15) BR 98, 17-18 (1265); 99,16 (1282).
(16) b. Sotah 10a: "Samson shielded Israel during his generation," and "exacted punishment of the Philistines."

186

RICHARD G. MARKS

[6]

However, in the same texts (even by the same sages) that had
expressed admiration for gibborim, we can detect also a sense of anxiety
about them. Just because gibborim possessed strength to an extreme
measure, the way they used that strength became all the more important. There was all the more danger from what they could do wrong.
T h e blessing could turn into a curse. In the texts I have studied, this
problem claims the greater portion of attention. Possessing strength to
an extreme measure, these heroes served the sages as object lessons in
the nature and use of force. Three themes in particular stand out: (1)
the danger of putting too much faith in one's own powers; (2) the conditional nature of those powers; and (3) the obligation to use strength
wisely and righteously.
First, the texts warn against putting too much confidence in one's own
strength, as gibborim are apt to do. Samson is criticized for boasting. 17
Abner is presented as an object lesson in overconfidence. His example
proves that however strong one may become, one can never win the battie against death, because, as Scripture says, "The battle is not to the
gibborimn (Eccl. 9:11).18 T h e legends about Bar Daroma and Ben Koziva
portray them as warriors who took so much pride in their own strength
that they thought they needed no help from God. Going forth to battle,
they would pray, "Master of the World, neither help (us) nor defeat
(us)." By this prayer, they were asking God not to intervene, because
they considered their own considerable powers sufficient to win the battie.
But contrary to their prayers, God did intervene. H e sent snakes to
kill Bar Daroma and paralyze Ben Koziva; and devoid of his strength,
Ben Koziva died in battle and lost the war. T h e stories show the conditional nature of the warrior's strength: it depends upon the will of God.
In the Ben Koziva legends, a Bat Qol (voice from heaven) reinforces this
idea by declaring just what constitutes a nation's true power. T h e Bat
Qol proclaims to Ben Koziva, "You killed R. Elcazar of Modicim, the arm
of all Israel and their right eye; therefore, your own arm 'shall be wholly
withered' and your own right eye 4utterly blinded"' (Zech. 11:17). As the
"arm of all Israel," R. Elc^zar had protected Israel with his fasting and
prayers, exhibiting an attitude of dependency and trust which was the
opposite of Ben Koziva's attitude. This is the second major lesson which
the texts teach from the examples of gibborim namely, that God is the
true source of strength and that the warrior's strength, and his success in
battle, depend on his relationship with God. Ben Koziva refused to
(17) BR 98, 16 (1264).
(18) BR V 96 (1235). Midr. Kohelet Rab. 9,11.

[71

DANGEROUS HERO

187

acknowledge this transcendent dimension of power, and as a result, forfeited his strength. Samson, too, lost his strength; sages state that this
resulted not from mere recklessness, but because he "rebelled" (marad)
against God and for this suffered punishment.19 As for Joseph, the legend is careful to ground his strength in his "fear of Heaven."20
T h e third theme has to d o with the proper exercise of force, and
comes out of the fear, expressed often in our texts, that gibborim might
use their strength in dangerous and sinful ways. We see this concern
expressed most clearly in an exchange between two sages which has been
included with the legends about J u d a h and his brothers. T h e text has R.
Hama b. Hanina question Joseph's prudence in asking his guards to
leave him alone with his brothers, since, as the sage says, just one kick
from his brothers would have killed him instantly. But R. Shem^el b.
Nahmani replies that Joseph, trusting in his brothers' righteousness
(zidqan shel 3ehav), thought to himself, "Has veshaloml God forbid! My
brothers are not to be suspected of shedding blood!" 21 T h e point is,
however, that R. Hama does suspect Joseph's brothers of shedding
blood, and does express concern as to what they might d o with their
enormous strength. This same fear shows elsewhere in the legends, with
the various pictures of how terrifying Judah appears in his rage, and
how frightened of him Joseph and his guards become. Thus, in these
legends gibborim arouse the fear that they might lose control of their
strength and commit serious crimes.
This is exactly what happened with Ben Koziva. Out of baseless suspicions and rash conclusions, incited to mindless rage, h e strikes R.
El cazar, killing him with just one kick of his foot. In doing so, Ben Koziva
has destroyed by his own strength the very cause for which he has been
fighting, and has given Israel over to the Roman sword, like sheep to be
slaughtered. This is the danger in gibborim, and why their strength must
be governed by righteousness, piety, and caution. T h e same is true of
Abner. Expressing opinions as to why Abner deserved his death at the
hands of Joab, various sages suggest the following sins: Abner had killed
Asahel needlessly, when wounding him would have sufficed; Abner
made sport of human life by commanding young men to fight each
other in a contest; h e stirred u p hostility between Saul and David; and h e
did not act to save the priests of Nob.22 What all these sins suggest is an
(19) m. Sotah 1,8. So(ah 9b-10a.
(20) BR 93,7.
(21) BR 93,9 (1158-59).
(22) VR 26,2 (492-95). b. Sanh. 20a and 49a. y. Pec ah 1:1 (4a in Basitmar ed.). Pesiq.
Rav Kah. 4,2.

188

RICHARD G. MARKS

[8]

attitude dangerous in a gibbor a disregard for human life resulting in

needless bloodshed and strife. For this, Abner deserved his death.
Thus, what I find expressed in the various legends and opinions that
make u p the texts examined here, is an ambivalence toward gibborim.
This ambivalence characterizes not only the texts themselves, considered
as an aggregate, but also individual sages who speak of a gibbor with
favor one time and with disapproval, another. 23 O n the one hand, the
texts present the mighty heroes of Israel as men in whom to take pride
and pleasure. Their strength had value in defending Israel; it also had a
transcendent dimension, coming to them as a blessing from God. But on
the other hand, the same texts convey a sense of concern about gibborim,
because their strength was liable to make them presumptuous. Refusing
to acknowledge its transcendent source, they could use it in a sinful and
arrogant manner, causing needless bloodshed and endangering the
nation.
II
There are a number of ways to interpret this ambivalence toward
gibborim. As a religious phenomenon, it suggests what historians of religion have called "the ambivalence of the sacred" that is, opposing attitudes of reverence and fear in respect to what is holy, which in turn presents itself as both a blessing and a curse. 24 Indeed, we have already
noticed how our texts tend to endow the gibbor's strength with an aura of
the sacred. His strength was exceptional, wondrous, and strange,manifesting something of the strength of God Himself. It was a power for
good, but a power that by its very nature could destroy as well; and the
rabbinic response, insofar as these texts convey it, was primarily to
rationalize and control this power.
Many legends ascribe supernatural powers also to the sages. Notable
are the stories about R. Shimcon b. Yohai, in which, for example, he
causes corpses to rise from the streets of Tiberias, and kills men just by
casting his eyes on them.25 Jacob Neusner has drawn attention to similar
legends describing the supernatural powers of Babylonian rabbis. I n
these legends, a sage "could bring rain or cause drought. His blessings
(23) For example, R. Yizhaq on Samson, b. Sotah 9b; and R. Yohanan in b. Sotah 10a,
where he speaks disapprovingly o f Samson's sins but then praises Samson for judging
Israel in the same manner as their father in heaven."
(24) Mircea Eliade, Patterns in Comparative Religion (New York, 1972), pp. 14-19. Cf. G.
van der Leeuw, Religion in Essence and Manifestation (New York, 1963), 1,48 o n "the ambivalent nature of awe."
(25) b. Shabb. 33b34a. Midr. Koh. Rab. o n Eccl. 8:1.

DANGEROUS HERO

189

brought fertility, and his curses, death." 26 I n that this power had a sacred
character (having been acquired through Torah and righteousness and
deriving ultimately from God), the power of the rabbis in legend resembles the strength of gibborim, which is also supernatural and also connected with God. But what does this similarity mean? If a comparison
was implied, it was detrimental to gibborim. T h e message might have
been that sages had the same power as gibborim, or even greater power;
that sages could control that power more safely, more righteously, and
more effectively than gibborim ; and hence, that sages, at least for the time
being, were the proper vessels for divine power. That is what the Ben
c
Koziva legends imply when they compare Ben Koziva with R. El azar.
T h e sage's power is the greater power, and it is more effective and less
dangerous than Ben Koziva's strength.
T h e legends about gibborim, and the ambivalence expressed, can also
be understood in the context of individual ethics. T h e legends present
gibborim as national heroes in whose strength readers could take pride,
but at the same time the texts try to prevent readers from accepting
gibborim as models for behavior. T h e texts teach that physical strength is
not a good in itself but has to be guided by piety and righteousness.
Furthermore, the legends about gibborim have political implications.
T h e texts sought to show, as in the case of Ben Koziva, what was wrong
with the gibbor9s way of saving the nation. T h e military approach, as the
legends teach, was apt to exhibit a certain presumptuousness and distrust of God, relying upon force to solve all problems. This led to
disaster, as at Betar. Whereas the way of prayer, piety, and caution
which the Ben Koziva legends associate with the sages would ultimately have more effect on history.
These ideas seem to express the political quietism that historians have
long recognized as characterizing the national policy of the sages. After
the failures of the Zealots and Bar Kokhba and the disastrous consequences of their wars the sages came to reject military force as a means
of gaining national freedom. For the time being they abandoned the way
of the gibbor and espoused instead their own solution, a turning to God
in hope of moving Him, through prayer, righteous conduct, and Torah,
27
to save the nation. This study of the gibbor-legends has shown one way
(26) There We Sat Down (Nashville, 1972), p. 79. See also History of the Jews of Babylonia
(Leiden, 1965-70), IV, 353-362.
(27) For example, Nahum Glatzer, in "The Attitude Toward Rome in the Third Century" (Essays in Jewish Thought, Alabama, 1978), discerned a change in attitude from messianic protests" to "historical passivity and the growing disregard o f the political world" (pp.
3, 11-12). Jacob Neusner likewise pointed to a new rabbinic program o f political passivity

i g o

RICHARD G. MARKS

[io]

in which these political views came to be expressed in rabbinic literature.

I n addition, the legends remind us that rabbinic literature never totally
repudiated gibbonm, for the texts look back at them with pride and find
value in their strength. Rather, the texts show readers the danger of
gibborim and their comparative ineffectiveness.
By comparison, the Literary Prophets expressed less ambivalence in
their condemnation of gibborim. They denounced as arrogance and distrust of God the reliance upon swords, chariots, gibborim (Hos. 10:13),
and war. Human armies, they warned, could not bring victory and
redemption to Israel; only obedience to God and reliance upon His
mercy could d o so. Gibborim might win victories, but God alone was the
source of those victories: it is H e who "smoothes the path" before Cyrus
and "breaks down gates of bronze" for him (Isa. 45:1, 13). T h e prophets
themselves were more powerful than gibborim, because their words
which "destroy and overthrow, build and plant" (Jer. 1:10) tell the will
of God, and because, as advocates speaking to God on Israel's behalf,
they could change the course of events.
T h e sages understood power in basically the same way, except that
now they themselves took over the role of advocates for Israel, trying by
their own words and actions to avert destruction or hasten redemption.
However, there is, as we have seen, also a positive side to rabbinic opinions of gibborim which goes contrary to the dominant stance taken by the
Literary Prophets. Rabbinic legends speak admiringly of the feats of
Joseph and Judah, the enormous strength of Samson, the nearly invincible might of Ben Koziva. Yet while praising gibborim, the literature seems
at the same time to be relegating their importance to the legendary past
or to the future when the Messiah (or God directly) will fight the great
final war.
As presented in the rabbinic texts, therefore, gibborim were to be
admired but not emulated: they represented the glory of Israel's past
and the hope of Israel's future, but not its present course through history.
III
There is one further tendency in the rabbinic treatment of gibborim
which invites attention. This is the tendency of redefining gevurah,
"heroism," so that it no longer refers to physical strength. One example
occurs in a midrash attributed to R. Dimi, in which he interprets a
and religious inwardness," but beginning with the time o f Yohanan ben Zakkai (FromPolitics to Piety and A Life of Yohanan ben Zakkai).

[11]

DANGEROUS HERO

prophecy of Isaiah (3:1-7). Isaiah declares that God will punish Judah
by removing all the leaders that constitute the nation's "prop and stay,"
leaving only worthless men to rule. T h e prophet includes the gibbor and
the soldier in the category of "prop and stay," but R. Dimi in his midrash
explains that gibbor refers to "masters of tradition" and that ish milhamah,
"soldier," refers to the scholar skilled in conducting himself "in the war
of Torah," bemilhamtah shel torah. By defining gibbor in this way, R. Dimi is
intentionally excluding soldiers from the category of national leadership.28 A midrash attributed to R. Berekhya redefines gevurah similarly
as the mighty deeds of scholars on the battlefield of Torah. According to
R. Berekhya, when Wisdom in Proverbs 8 calls out "to you men" (8:4),
the men to whom Wisdom calls are "the disciples of the sages who sit like
women but perform feats o gevurah like men."29 T h e concept of gevurah
is redefined also in the well-known statement attributed to Ben Zoma:
"Who is a gibbor? H e who conquers his evil impulse (yro)."30 All these
definitions of gevurah diminish the value of physical strength while
retaining the glory associated with gibbonm. But now a different kind of
strength, the kind exhibited in the academic labors of the sages and the
internal moral struggles of the individual, acquires the glory of the battlefield.
We see such transformations of heroic ideals occurring often in history. They occurred with the Greek hero Herakles, who, like Achilles,
exhibited in early legends such superhuman powers as those of the legendary gibbonm. Achilles was nearly invulnerable to weapons, and Herakles conquered foes whom ordinary men could not whole armies, terrible monsters, giants, and even death itself. Such power was explained
in legend by the hero's birth from the seed of Zeus and by the constant
intervention of the gods. Hesiod conceived of the heroes as "half-gods"
(ihemitheoi); Pindar called Herakles hros theos (hero and god). 31 T h e ritual
context of the hero legends was the hero cult, in which sacrifices were
offered to heroes at their graves in the belief that they could protect the
city and help the worshiper. Greek heroes in early legend and cult thus
resemble gibborim in rabbinic legends in that the strength of both groups
was endowed with a sacred transcendent quality although of course
the nature of this quality was explained differently.
(28) b. Hag 14a.
(29) b. Yoma 71b.
(30) m. Avot 4,1. See also Avot R. Nat. commenting on Ben Zoma's dictum.,4(True)
gibborim, are none other than the gibbonm (mighty warriors) o f Torah (gibbore torah)" (Chap.
23)

(31) Works and Days, 160. Pindar, Nem. 3.22.

192

RICHARD G. MARKS

[1 2 ]

G. Karl Galinsky's book, The Herakles Theme, is a skillful study of the

many transformations through which the image of Herakles passed in
the hands of Greek and Roman writers. At the time of Hesiod,Herakles
became a champion of justice and a civilizer; in the tragedies of
Sophocles and Euripides, Herakles represented Greek individualism
and humanism; for Seneca, Herakles was a hero of Stoic virtus and
endurance so magnificent as to bring about his apotheosis.32 Stoic philosophers revered Herakles as a great benefactor of mankind.
Heracleitus the allegorist (first century B. C. E.) recast Herakles as a Stoic
philosopher and denied his physical strength altogether. I n this allegory,
Herakles' labors came to represent a philosopher's efforts to conquer his
passions and bring enlightenment to the world. I n a similar vein,
Servius, in the early fifth century, pictured Herakles possessing "a mind
even greater than his bodily strength"; to Servius, the conquest of Cerberus symbolized victory over all lusts and vices.33 Galinsky suggests that
the story of Herakles could evoke these many interpretations because in
its essence it expressed some of the deepest ideals of Greek and Roman
civilization.
We cannot reconstruct a history of the images of gibbonm in the early
rabbinic period, but we can ask whether gibborim could embody ideals
important to the sages in the way that Herakles embodied basic Greek
and Roman ideals. Indeed, a few rabbinic traditions about Abner d o
portray him as a "lion of Torah," an educated soldier who, like a sage,
engages in halakhic debate. Furthermore, as a number of writers have
recently pointed out, some of the military heroes of Scripture such as
Joshua, David, and Benaiah (II Sam. 23:20) become transformed in
34
rabbinic literature into peaceable students of Torah. However, as we
saw with Judah and his brothers, the transformation may sometimes go
in the opposite direction; and concerning Abner's comprehension of
legal matters, one rabbinic tradition suggests that it was less than
adept. 35 Samson, moreover, never appears as a sage. At best, he is a
righteous (zaddik) protector of the nation (like Herakles in his role of
alexikakos, averter of evil), manifesting the holy spirit (ruah haqodesh); at
(32) The Herakles Theme (Oxford, 1972).
(33) Heracleitus, Alleg. Horn. 33-35. Galinsky, pp. 188-90. Hadas and Smith, Heroes
and Gods (New York, 1965), p. 22. E. Zeller, Stoics, Epicureans and Sceptics (New York, 1962),
pp. 368-69. Plutarch, too, played down Herakles' physical strength, praising him instead
for his concern over justice and his skill in logic (Mor. 387D).
(34) b. Sanh. 44b. b. Ber. 18b. b. Ned. 32a (Abraham's soldiers). Jacob Agus, p. 61, and
John Ferguson, War and Peace in the World's Religions (New York, 1978), p. 88, among other
scholars, have noted this point. The examples cited here are theirs.
(35) BR 82,5 (980-81). VR 26,2. b. Yev. 76b. Midr. Ruth Rab. 4,6.

[13]

DANGEROUS HERO

9 3

his worst, he is a conceited fool dominated by his desires.36 Ben Koziva

likewise never appears at all like a sage. Rather, the episode in which he
is outsmarted by a clever Cuthean serves to display Ben Koziva's
stupidity, especially in comparison with the sages, who in other stories
usually succeed in outwitting Cutheans. 37 Thus, in the rabbinic texts,
Samson and Ben Koziva remain in their original form as gibborim, and
their strength, though considered valuable, does not become an ideal to
be pursued actively at present.
I n another study I have tried to demonstrate that later Jewish literatur refashioned the image of Ben Koziva (Bar Kokhba) many times,
giving it contemporary significance for later generations. T h e figure
who began as a gibbor was in later literature transformed into a king, a
condottiere, a magician, and a gilgul (transformation) of the messianic
soul. 38 During the period here considered, u p to the seventeenth
century, Bar Kokhba held continuing significance for Jews as a false
messiah and national hero. His heroism, however, always remained
problematical; Jewish writers could never embrace him wholeheartedly.
They recognized in him their own yearnings for political power; and for
some of them, h e represented a memory of Israel's past glory or a foretokening of future messianic triumph. Yet his was never the proper path
to redemption, and his story functioned most often in Jewish literature
as a warning against taking u p arms to bring about redemption before its
proper time ("forcing the End"). Perhaps today Bar Kokhba, along with
the Maccabees, can be considered a full-blown Jewish hero, but until
recently his story contradicted too many of the ideals of Jewish writers
for him to take on a role like that of Herakles in Greek and Roman literature. (There are, certainly, other important differences, such as that
between historical legend and myth, and the forms of Jewish literature
as compared with Greek and Roman forms.)

(36) Samson as fool: BR 67, 12. Desires: BR 98, 17; VR 23,9; m. Sotah 1,8; b. Sotah 9b.
Boasting: BR 98, 16.
(37) b. Yoma 69a. BR 94,7. Midr. Qoh. Rab. 5,10. Gibborim those who, unlike Joshua
and David, are primarily warriors are generally portrayed in rabbinic literature as dullwitted folk who cannot quite comprehend the intricacies o f Torah and human affairs. Not
only is Ben Koziva outsmarted by a Cuthean and Samson outwitted by a clever woman, but
Abner misinterprets Torah, and Jephthah and Gideon, through their ignorance o f the
law, commit bloodshed and idolatry VR 22,9 and 37,4; BR 44,20 and 60,3.
(38) The Image of Bar Kokhba in Jewish Literature up to the Seventeenth Century: FalseMessiah and National Hero (dissertation, University o f California, Los Angeles, 1980).
Specifically, I refer to writings of Rashi, Ibn Daud, Maimonides, Isaac Abravanel, six historiographers o f the sixteenth century, Hayyim Vital, and Nathan o f Gaza.

194

RICHARD G. MARKS

[141

Rabbinic literature, then, deals in two ways with gibborim, these ^heroes
of whom the sages could neither fully approve nor fully disapprove. One
way was to preserve gibborim as heroes of physical strength, even
enlarging upon their strength and adding to their glory, but at the same
time to draw attention to the limitations and dangers inherent in such
strength. T h e stories of gibborim became illustrations of the nature of
force in general, and served as sermonic texts. T h e second approach was
to redefine gevurah so completely that a Samson and a Ben Koziva would
be excluded from the new meaning. Indeed, if gevurah consists of selfcontrol and scholarly achievement, Samson and Ben Koziva are the
opposite of gibborim. As we noted above, a number of Hellenistic and
Roman writers, and especially the Stoics, perceived in Herakles a man
who had conquered his passions and brought enlightenment to the
world. This has some resemblance to the internalized gibborim of the new
rabbinic definition, who defeat the attack of their evil desires or perform
mighty deeds on the battlefield of Torah.

Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use
according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as
otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.
No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the
copyright holder^)5 express written permission. Any use, decompiling,
reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a
violation of copyright law.
This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission
from the copyright holder( s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of ajournai
typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,
for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.
Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific
work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered
by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the
copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,
or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).
About ATLAS:
The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previously
published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS
collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association
(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.
The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American
Theological Library Association.